All those jobs going overseas? Blame it on the ladies. At least according to MRA blogger The Fifth Horseman – the guy behind The Misandry Bubble, a bizarre apocalyptic manifesto that took the manosphere by storm last year. In a heavily upvoted comment on The Spearhead, TFH explains:
Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism.
Feminists impose all sorts of costs on businesses in the US, who are forced to employ women despite the low productivity of these female employees.
Since an office is not allowed to have too many men, the next best answer is to move the entire department to India or China, where Western feminists can no longer harass it.
Since Western women cost more than what Western men produce, outsourcing is inevitable, as a means to avoid feminism.
The blogger behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog was impressed enough with this argument that he featured it in a post of his own, adding
Plenty of people have tried to run the numbers on the offshoring of jobs, but they can never figure out where the savings are supposed to be. Business would only offshore jobs if it made financial sense, and running the numbers indicates that it doesn’t make financial sense because any savings gets eaten up by the costs of offshoring. That is the case until you include the costs of feminism in the analysis. When someone runs the numbers on offshoring, they don’t include things like the costs of the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and pure makework jobs for women in their analysis. As soon as feminism is included, offshoring makes perfect financial sense for business. …
If you want jobs to come back to the US (and elsewhere), then you have to eliminate feminism.
Yeah, that’s gotta be it.
@pecunium
to be fair, i dont think he made that argument. he believes theres a baseline cost to sexual harassment aside from legal expenses, but apparently he thinks its cheaper to move to a country where sexual harassment is legal than to work at eliminating sexual harassment, because he doesnt understand, and doesn’t want to understand, that there are other factors involved.
@ PFKA Annecdotal evidence etc.
I certainly agree that an individual judge can allow gender to affect their individual judgements. I do not think this means that across an entire legal system the gender matters, if it did then the only way to have a fair judicial system is to have gener apartheid. If you truly believe that you cannot get a fair trial if the judges gender doesn’t match the other parties involved. I would say judges are better educated than the majority of the population and just by their position they have the vested power of their respective nation to dispense justice, the country needs to have faith that the judge will make the correct decision.
There is some evidence that a societal bias causes discrimination in the legal system, for instance when you compare the rates of conviction of different social groups, but I do not agree this is due to the judges relative social group.
Ullere: what country are you from?
Sharculese: I am being a bit ad absurdem here, with one of his arguments. He is saying that the cost of preventing harassment is a major reason for offshoring jobs. He’s not supported this, but he’s repeated it.
Since the costs don’t exist; and some part of those costs are the prevention efforts, he is saying that being able to stop those prevention efforts (and the concommitant likelihood of an increase in actual harassement) is an incentive to move the place of business.
In effect turning a profit by allowing harassment.
or… we could work to end the gender inequalities that lead to these problems. why is it that you always go to most drastic solution first.
but seriously, the things youve listed arent evidence that such a disparity exists, just evidence that youre uncomfortable with the implications of that disparity. wanting something to not be true is never going to make it so.
@pecunium
okay, i understand you now.
Oh wow I’m sorry if I came across as saying that sexual harassment is the reason comapnies go offshore. My original post was that sexual harassment has a cost to companies and that claims do not onlty rarely go somewhere.
I am not saying that the potential savings of sexual harassment costs would be anywhere near the expense caused by relocation, but I wouldn’t bet against companies factoring it in to their decision.
The reason I said quite possibly/banal state to your points is they don’t factor in to my position.
If sexual harassment has a cost(and it does) then you can save on that cost by relocating to a country with lower sexual harassment costs.
Now there are loads of other factors, and I doubt sexual harassment alone would ever be near the cost of relocation. So you are objecting to me not mentioning other factors, I gotcha.
it is cheaper in terms of sexual harassment costs, but there are loads of other costs and saving involved. Do you not think the legal rights of workers factors into relocation decisions? You say there are many other factors and I agree, Do you agree that if there are costs to sexual harassment that they would also be a factor considered?
@PFKA
‘Based on what exactly?’
I don’t believe people behave incorrectly based on genentics, thats the basis of my belief. I do not belief men are more likely to behave poorly than women, so any bias shown by male judges is likely shown by female judges.
@Pecunium No thats not what I’ve said, but now I think I understand why Sharculese has an issue with what I have said I see no reason to repost what I have said.
I’m from Scotland, to the people who have asked for my nationality. The greatest country north of england except every country north of Scotland.
‘He is saying that the cost of preventing harassment is a major reason for offshoring jobs. ‘
Not only am I not supporting it, I’m not even saying it. I have not said it’s a major reason, or that it is a reason at all. I have said there are costs and wherever there are costs there are possible savings.
‘In effect turning a profit by allowing harassment.’
Well they would definitely save the money spent of prevention, however they would lose out on public image and a variety of other costs. I believe sexual harassment is a cost to industry, I could well use your logic to say my posts so far favour the elimination of sexual harassment as it would lead to greater profit.
Which is also true, the lower a crime happens the lower the cost of that crime.
why is it that the people doing the sexual harrassing just…you know…STOP SEXUALLY HARASSING! There. End of problems.
I am so sick and tired of the lengths MRAs and chauvanists go to excuse their inappropriate behavior. When you are at work, you are expected to act professionally. You aren’t at a bar, you aren’t at a party, you aren’t chilling with friends, you are at WORK. Such dolts I swear. Is it really impossible for men to not say something sexual to women? are they really incapable of controlling their mouths and hands? Most men can, it’s just that this group of men don’t want to because they are immature, entitled assholes.
i’m pretty sure everyone else was talking about differences caused by culture. you do realize youre on a feminist site, right? very few people here are going to tell you that men and women are inherently different.
so, you are from a common law country… i have bad news for you ullere. your laws dont work the way you think they do.
honestly man, youre just digging yourself into a deeper hole now. find some basis for what your saying other than ‘i believe’ because ‘i believe’ is simply not good enough when you’re talking about things that actually happen. do some basic reasearch. maybe even read a book? having opinions is hard work, you dont get to just bluster in and tell everyone else what’s what.
maybe this is just not your topic.
@quackers
really a lot of the time its just that theyve never been told before that they can’t behave that way. a lot of employee advocates end up working for large firms where they represent corporate clients, because a lot of the time the best way to stop sexual harassment is to go in before hand and say ‘this is what you have to stop doing.’ sexual harassment isnt revenue generating, so theres no time where its more expensive to work towards putting a stop to it.
I’m not even certain what the topic is. I thought It was about whether sexual harassment had a cost to companies. I mentioned societal bias which I assume is what you are calling culturem, I have said a few times now this isn’t my field, also It’s not something I’m particularily interested in. that doesn’t mean I can’t object to a baseless (and still baseless as you have still provided no evidence) claim that the number of male judges relative to the number of female judges causes a bias against women in the legal system.
a lot of men overestimate their ability to recognize sexual harassment because theyve never faced it before and never taken the time to think about it. thats what causes a good chunk of the bias i talked about, not conscious malice.
Including Judges that preside of sexual harassment claims? I’d say the majority of Judges haven’t face sexual harassment, this isn’t a gender issue.
Gender bias can be checked you know-this is an admittedly old study of MA’s own court system. Alaska study The disparity is real and has been an ongoing issue for decades even though it is slowly improving.
It reflects itself in sentencing usually though-female judges sentence both genders pretty much equally however male judges, depending on the type of offense, do not sentence women as harshly as men.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh man that was funny.
Yes, the vast majority of female judges have had this happen to them. And it may surprise you but it often comes from the litigants. Male judges also face it from female litigants but not nearly as often. Although there was this one judge…
no, that wasnt ever the topic. why would we discuss something so banal?
ive explained about as much as i can to someone who is totally non-conversant on how american courts work (and no, i dont have the patience to explain it to you, because youve shown an outright hostility to new information). i know the facts conflict with how youd like to view the world, but that is not a reason to throw them out.
Judges are part of the society in which they live, reflecting many of its cultural values and moral norms but also many of its prejudices. I have seen no evidence that male judges are more affected by these prejudices than female judges, thats why I do not believe the gender of the judge matters.
Now is there evidence showing that female judges make the correct judgement in sexual harassment cases proportionately more than male judges? If not I stand by my objection.
you dont think women who enter a traditionally male dominated field experience sexual harassment? what fantasy world do you live in?
You would be surprised-or maybe not. Definitely not
What do you mean by correct? Upheld by appellate courts or that you the lay person thinks is correct?
‘Yes, the vast majority of female judges have had this happen to them’ source please. Please show me a source that has the ‘vast majority’ of female judge having experience sexual harassment.
Citing a source showing male judges being lenient on female perpetrators is kind of the opposite of male judges being biased against womens claims?
what can i say man. ive explained exactly how it works to you. if you choose not to believe it because it goes against your preconceptions, well, like i said, i don’t have the patience to bring you up to speed. go do your homework.
i want to clarify that the issue of severity and pervasiveness does sometimes go to a jury, but the research suggests that juries may be even worse at it than judges.